Thunder suffocate the Spurs in Game 3, 102-82

But one that’s verrrrrrrrrrrrrry big. Super big. So big it deserves it’s own NBA BIG commercial.

With the series on the brink, the Thunder responded by completely smoking the Spurs 102-82 to crawl back into the series. It was the kind of Thunder performance we all knew they were capable of. And one they put together for 36 minutes in Game 1. Suffocating defense, relentless transition attacks, smart execution and outstanding individual play from primetime performers.

It was really the only way the Thunder could probably resurrect themselves in this series. When you’re playing a team that’s seemingly invincible like the Spurs, blowing them out is the best way to go. Especially when you’re one loss away from seeing your season basically die. Avoiding crucial halfcourt possessions trying to stop Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili and Tim Duncan was very wise.

Obviously the defensive adjustment to play Thabo Sefolosha on Tony Parker proved to be important, but I like what Scott Brooks said after the game.

“I thought the biggest adjustment was we played better.”

Simple, succinct, straightforward. And true.

The Thunder have had this game in them all along, and were close to it at different points during Games 1 and 2. They just put it all together and transformed into the monster they can become. They’re capable of this on any given night. And the truth is, they’re going to need this, or something close to this, three more times.

“Defensively that was as well as you can play against the best team in basketball,” Brooks said. “Everybody did it throughout every possession.”

There’s no doubt about it that Thabo was the player of the game with six steals, 79 deflections (estimated), one block, six rebounds and 19 points. And his defense was inspiring as he cut the head off the San Antonio snake by eliminating Parker’s midrange game completely while also keeping him from the rim. But more than that, the Thunder became themselves again. They played fast, smart and tough. They ran, they defended, they passed, they rebounded. They turned it over only seven times, they shot 45 percent from the floor. They got balanced scoring, but their best players also played well. It all rounded into a near perfect 48 minutes of basketball when the Thunder absolutely had to have it.

There was no room for second-guessing or regrets after this one. The transgressions of Games 1 and 2 put the Thunder in a hole and have made it extremely difficult. But there’s no changing it now. It was now or never and the Thunder had a whole lot of now in them tonight.

I’ve felt for a while that the Thunder just needed to win once just as a mental boost to prove to themselves it could be done. They’ve had so many struggles against the Spurs the last three years and with San Antonio having this incredible run, I’m sure it weighed on the Thunder mentally that it seemed they couldn’t be beat. Maybe it opens the floodgates, maybe not. But in terms of finally feeling good about the team they’re playing, the Thunder can look across at the Spurs and not feel like that team is invincible.

“We’re human,” Stephen Jackson said. Which I think is an important thing to note. They are human. They do bleed if you cut them. They aren’t some Terminator sent from space that won’t die.

“We never thought these guys had an advantage over us even though we lost a few,” Durant said. “It was just good we took it to 2-1. We didn’t want to go down 0-3. We wanted to protect our home court. We weren’t worried about previous games between us. We were just worried about tonight.”

It’s a series again, at least until Saturday. The Spurs are dealing with a feeling they haven’t had in almost two months. But while Game 3 was the biggest game ever in Thunder history, Game 4 is even bigger. Either the Thunder even up and make this thing real interesting, or it’s back to being pushed into a corner. The adjustments and better play in Game 3 were huge, but points don’t carry over. Just because it clicked tonight doesn’t mean it will again Saturday. And it’s pretty unlikely the Thunder find a 20-point cushion again in this series.

But they’re good enough to win this thing. They proved it, and proved it loudly, tonight. They can not only hang with the Spurs, they can kick their asses too. The Thunder live on and give themselves a chance. Which is really all they might need.

NOTES:

Credit where it’s due. It was two games too late, but Brooks made the necessary changes in Game 3 and the adjustments paid off big time. It’s not the first time the Thunder have used Thabo on Parker in history, but it was the first time in this series it was the opening matchup. But it wasn’t just Thabo. There was a minor tweak in the middle of the defensive shell where OKC pinched everything, forcing the Spurs to the wings. And instead of slow rotations to contest, the Thunder fired out to challenge shooters. The Thunder bigs were excellent in showing and recovering in the pick-and-roll. About as good as Perk, Ibaka and Collison have ever done it, I think.

If Gregg Popovich wasn’t Gregg Popovich, I think a lot of people might be blasting him for this game. I thought he coached it horribly. As OKC made major adjustments, the Spurs seemed lost in their own system. Pop waited way too long to insert Manu Ginobili in the second half, dusted off James Anderson really randomly and didn’t pull the trigger on anything. Granted, he’s Pop and you get away with stuff when you have four shiny things on your fingers, but I don’t think Game 3 was his finest 48.

Perk shut up some people — including me — for a night. He played an outstanding defensive game, challenging Duncan, showing well in the pick-and-roll and playing big. When he got caught in a mismatch on Parker and got into a stance clapping as if to say “Let’s go little man,” I got chills. Same thing happened a few possessions later only with Perk on Ginobili, and he stuffed him. Perk was energetic, emotional and involved and showed that maybe he does have a value in this series.

Scott Brooks on Perk: “Perk didn’t play well last game. The decision wasn’t to not play him. The guy has won so many games for us. I just needed him to play better.”

KD had The Look in this one. He didn’t finish with an unbelievable line or anything, but he had a look to him like there was no way he was going down quietly. I’m getting excited just thinking about it. You could tell this morning that KD was ready for this game and with it being the biggest in his life, he more than showed up.

As good as Brooks coached this game, he was equally good in his postgame media session. Great answers, good insight and smart thoughts.

Thabo on the switch to Parker: “That was Scott [Brooks]’s idea. But I think the whole time we were thinking about it and we made the adjustment tonight and it worked out good.”

Parker on Thabo guarding him: “They did that in the past. OKC put Thabo on me last year or two years ago. Nothing different for me. I just have to choose my spots and keep being aggressive.”

Stat via @ThunderStats: Thabo played the first 15 minutes of Game 3. He played 15 total in Game 2.

Points in the paint by game for the Spurs: 50, 42, 24.

I have to single out a defensive possession for Westbrook: He denied Manu Ginobili three times, nearly baiting the ballhandler into a bad pass. He then recovered to block Tony Parker’s shot on the baseline and after the ball fell to Stephen Jackson in the corner and was passed back to Parker, Westbrook contested Parker again. He made the shot, but it was an absolutely incredible individual effort.

One thing OKC did was put the Spurs offense in Duncan’s hands. In the first 15 minutes of the game, Duncan had attempted 12 shots to Parker’s four. The Thunder were trying to funnel the ball to Duncan and let him shoot from midrange, or see if he could beat Perk in the post. Great strategy that obviously worked well.

The officiating was spotty early on and after an iffy call went against OKC, KD picked up a technical… from the bench.

I can’t stop thinking about Game 1. I’m sorry, I can’t.

I mean, it’s hard not to wonder where these adjustments were in Games 1 and 2. The Thabo on Parker thing was always there and like Parker acknowledged, has happened in the past. Which is why I think Brooks made a quality point in saying the biggest adjustment was that they played better. The Thunder executed a lot of the same gameplan, but just really did it well.

Westbrook: “Just do what we do, Thunder basketball.” That’s either an awesome quote, or a really boring one. I can’t tell.

Look at those defensive stats. Nine blocks. Eleven steals. Twenty-one turnovers for the Spurs and 39.5 percent shooting. What an effort.

Tony Parker does this kind of annoying thing where he interrupts the reporter’s question before they finish it. I kind of like it, but I kind of hate it too.

Anyone find it strange that after game 1 the media blasted Harden and praised Ginoboli as being the "real" sixth man. But after the last two games where Harden has outplayed Ginoboli by quite a margin, no one says anything?

I'd just like to point out that if you go back to Wednesday's bolts, following the Game 2 loss, and look at the bottom post in that thread, I posted this:

"I'm not convinced how much it would have helped, but I kept wondering what would have happened if we'd played Thabo and made him a bigger part of the offense. Our Big 3 had good games, but we needed more from our role players. I think Thabo could have provided that, if given a chance."

Yesterday I brought up that miami game, where we moved the ball so well, and I think we played pretty close to that last night. Watching us make that extra pass nearly every time was a thing of beauty, especially Russ who finally on an off shooting night decided to show the league that he can pass with the best of em'. Great game all around, great effort, and great focus. If we can keep that up, no one will beat us.

I told you guys that we were going to figure out this gimmicky Spurs offense. It just took a little more time than I suspected. The Thunder are going to dismantle the Spurs now because they don't have a plan B! You don't go from 120 points to 82 in one game by chance!

There's one thing that bothers me. Don't get me wrong, I'm extremely glad Brooks came around and made the adjustments he did, and Perk played out of his mind, but does this mean he'll continue to play big minutes if he isn't playing as well as he did last night? You can't possibly depend on him to perform at that level for the whole rest of the series, and when he's not, does Brooks have the balls to pull him?

I did a linear regression analysis of the offensive ratings of OKC and the Spurs throughout each series. Both teams have shown a decline in offensive rating as the series progresses but the Spurs drop off is very severe. They are averaging declining -4.19 offensive rating points/game while the Thunder are only declining -2.1 offensive rating points/game

@Thunderup_13 I'm not surprised. There are very few sports analysts that would step up and admit they were wrong about anything. The best you can hope for is for one of them to say "he surprised me with his play" which in itself is a back handed compliment. FEAR THE BEARD!

@JMattHicks Well stated. Coaches in general are given too much of the blame when things goes wrong because the players are magnificent idols in fans eyes are more easily given the pass. My case in point is the shirt I have on today has 5 players pics on it and not one coach.

@aise0603 Love the Thunder! But calling the Spurs offense "gimmicky" is well kinda gimmicky. They did not win 20 in a row with smoke and mirrors. They are the real deal and they have the rings to prove it. That said, THUNDER UP BABY! Can't wait till game 4 to see the Thunder take it to em' again!

@JimboSlice Was Perk supposed to be switching in the first two games? I don't think so, maybe I'm wrong. My guess is that he was implementing Scott Brooks idiotic defensive strategy. And finally Scott Brooks figured out to switch and show hard on Parker and Ginobili.

@JMattHicks It's all good dude! Fans are SUPPOSED to be homers! Nice analysis of the game, Jordan, Byrd, Shaq, Magic and Dr. J would have had a hard time against them last night (okay I exaggerate like a homer, but you get my meaning). Game 4 is gonna really tell the tale. Oh and THUNDER UP BABY!

Are you a buffoon? I called this before the series started. I said that the Thunder would do poorly at first and then as the series wore on, the Thunder would figure out the gimmicky nature of this team and then you would see tons and tons of turnovers. And that's EXACTLY what we've seen for the last 5 quarters. My only mistake was thinking that Brooks would figure it out in between game 1 and 2 so I was a game behind but I fully expect the Thunder to win this series and I wouldn't be surprised if they win the next 3.

@FF_pickups most likely, but even with the switching and showing hard, I don't think Perk can sustain the effectiveness he had last night, especially if Pop starts throwing a second screen (which he will) on either the roll man or the ballhandler. For these things, Serge is still the better equipped of the two imo

@aise0603 So the fact that the Spurs won 20 in a row and have home court advantage in the western finals means they have a gimmicky team? The fact that they have the best record in the west means they run a gimmicky offence? The fact that they run a pick and roll offence makes them gimmicky?The fact that the Spurs have not missed the playoffs in the 15 seasons since Tim Duncan was drafted by the Spurs means they have a gimmicky offense? How many rings does Duncan have? I would suggest the Spurs are a very good team and they are now up against another very good team who played like champions last night. I would also put forth the Thunder played to their potential and the move of Sefolosha to guarding Parker made a huge difference in the outcome of the game. Name calling does not make a good argument for or against anything. Words mean things, calling The Spurs gimmicky is not only unfair to them but kind of an unintentional stab at The Thunder because the Thunder have lost two to what you call a gimmicky offense.

@Lokedogg@anonymous12345 No doubt. But we cant do that for just one game, like you said we got to keep that kind of intensity up. And this is how they are built. They just lost it somewhere during the season and relied on their offense.

@Keith00@FF_pickups@JimboSlice Fish's 4 quick fouls each negated sure baskets. He finds a way to be a pain in the ass. That's why I hated him when I was a Celtic fan & why I like him now. He knows he shouldn't play big minutes. He is helping Scotty make the right call.

@Keith00@justin_mia "My main argument is his usage. 20+ minutes per game is a lot of burn for a non-starting role player. There is evidence to suggest Ivey is better than him to begin with, and certainly he is overused in our smallball lineups where Thabo has greater utility."

Okay, I think we aren't that far apart then. I absolutely would have preferred not signing Fisher and going with Ivey, getting him ready for the playoffs and letting him help get us here. I agree that Ivey is better than Fisher but at the point we are at, I don't advocate cold putting Ivey in in game 4 of the WCF. I wish we would have gone down that road but we didn't, imo, we've got to go with Fisher at this point over Ivey. You probably disagree with me but we aren't disagreeing about who is better, we are disagreeing about the degree of difficulty of cold joining the playoffs in game 4 of the WCF.

@FF_pickups@justin_mia One thing is for sure, he has the highest basketball IQ of anyone on the team. He knows when his team needs a bucket, and he knows when they need a play. And believe it or not he makes them. That's what veterans do. Just like Duncan when OKC came out 8-0. Duncan took a lot of shots and got some points and helped calm the storm. It's what veterans do.

@FF_pickups@justin_mia My argument is not simply on his individual merits, though I realize that I've formed it that way. That is my mistake. My main argument is his usage. 20+ minutes per game is a lot of burn for a non-starting role player. There is evidence to suggest Ivey is better than him to begin with, and certainly he is overused in our smallball lineups where Thabo has greater utility.

The amount of playing time he gets suggests (from Brooks, not from any of our opinions) that Fisher is a great role player. That simply isn't the case. If we are going to go small when Parker is on the court, we should never be using Fisher (who has no one to guard), Ivey or Thabo's defense would serve greater utility. If we are just giving Russ a rest, sure, Fisher can score better than Ivey and takes some ballhandling duties off Harden or KD. But that's only half the time Fisher currently plays, which is far more in line with his ability.

"You are giving Fisher way too much credit to say he is such a good secretary."

I don't think I said that he was good. I said he's taking way too much criticism. He's not optimal, far from it. But he's better than a traditional box score indicates. The only 'stat' that I have to show that he's being a decent role player is the stat that he's got the best +/- per minute on the team since he arrived. Obviously, I'm not saying he's the best player nor would I argue that he's even the best role player, all I am saying is that he's doing better than he's getting credit for.

@FF_pickups@justin_mia The problem with your secretary analogy is that there are good and bad secretaries. Sure, the boss needs a secretary no matter what, he simply can't handle the volume of appointment setting and still do his job of running the company. But, the company isn't going to fold if he has a bad secretary, because all the actual work is still up to the boss.

You are giving Fisher way too much credit to say he is such a good secretary. If that were true, he would be a better shooter (which would keep defenses honest) or a better defender (to take some pressure off his bosses in covering for his mistakes). The fact is, a secretary has to be good to actually deserve the credit. Fisher has not shown he is individually good enough to do those things that don't show up in the box score.

@FF_pickups@justin_mia The problem with your "doesn't show up in the box score" argument is that those kinds of things (chemistry, leadership, poise, hustle) have been shown to have almost no positive effect in the short time Fisher has been here. You can look it up, but one of the things the Sloan conference jumped into this year was the idea of veteran leadership and savvy. All the data they had said it's not individual aptitude in those areas, it is the amount of time teammates have played together (Fisher just got here).

And I don't think it is unfair to say that Russ-Harden-KD support the entire team. Without them we aren't the second seed, aren't in the conference finals, and aren't contenders. Fisher isn't even a pass-first PG or much of a hustle guy, so I don't see where you can make the argument that he is somehow positively augmenting the play of considerably better players.

Think of him as KD, Westbrook and Harden's secretary. The secretary is important because she makes the boss's job easier. The boss gets all of the credit and makes all of the money but with a bad secretary, the boss won't be nearly as efficient.

"I'm not sure that really changes my point. Once Fisher didn't have Russ/Harden/KD supporting him, he gave up a lot"

This is how you are looking at it incorrectly. Those guys aren't supporting him, he's supporting those guys. He does little things that help them shine a little brighter than usual. Those guys play better when he's in the game because he does things that don't show up in the box score.

@FF_pickups I'm not sure that really changes my point. Once Fisher didn't have Russ/Harden/KD supporting him, he gave up a lot. Moreover, it's not like he was playing against Parker/Ginobli at that point. He was beaten by SA's deep bench players himself.

@FF_pickups@JimboSlice According to the box score, he was only a +1, which is easily suspect as we won by 20. He was +9 in game two, which is honestly perplexing, and a -3 in game one. When we are playing teams with middling PGs, Fisher makes much more sense as that calming presence on the floor. But against Tony Parker (or whomever we try to hide him on), it just doesn't make sense. The Spurs as a team are looking to outscore their opponent. Veteran savvy simply doesn't help as much as a good defender or shooter.

Basketball plays, like intangibles, have to show up somewhere. For Fisher, they don't.

I know people hate me for this but Derek Fisher was +8 last night excluding garbage time. We continue to perform well as a team when he's out there. He's horrible athletically, he's undersized and he's not a great shooter but he just makes basketball plays.

@JimboSlice@FF_pickups Derek Fisher has played over 20 minutes each game against SA, despite shooting poorly the last two game and offering zero defensive value. I think that should tell you what you need to know about how Brooks will deal out minutes going forward.

@JimboSlice@FF_pickups It definitely depends on what Pop does in game 4. If he does utilize a second screen, I can still see Perk in there. The Thunder will have to communicate on the two screeners though. Also, if Pop decides to attack down low with Duncan and Blair, then Perk will be immensely vital.

I am sure Brooks is smart enough that the game dictates the amount of time Perk plays.

Trackbacks

[…] Royce Young at Daily Thunder: “It was really the only way the Thunder could probably resurrect themselves in this series. When you’re playing a team that’s seemingly invincible like the Spurs, blowing them out is the best way to go. Especially when you’re one loss away from seeing your season basically die. Avoiding crucial halfcourt possessions trying to stop Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili and Tim Duncan was very wise.” […]

[…] Royce Young of the Daily Thunder: “It was really the only way the Thunder could probably resurrect themselves in this series. When you’re playing a team that’s seemingly invincible like the Spurs, blowing them out is the best way to go. Especially when you’re one loss away from seeing your season basically die. Avoiding crucial halfcourt possessions trying to stop Tony Parker, Manu Ginobili and Tim Duncan was very wise.” […]